TA recruits selling kit

#1
Members of the Territorial Army are being issued with half their usual kit - to stop them flogging it.
link
 
#4
This has happened for years and it's not just recruits that flog the kit. If they take it and sell it, it should be classed as Theft. Simply get the Monkeys( sorry our glorious RMP 8O ) to visit the houses of offenders and prosecute through the military system. The threat of a few weeks in Colly should deter the little scrotes.
 
#6
Its not just recruits who do it , I can count on one hand the number of more seasoned stabs who have returned kit, they are the honest ones and also the ones who get billed for a missing aux webbing strap or pt vest
 
#7
Its funny how ex recruits suddenly find the kit when a landrover of blokes turn up on their door step :lol:
 
#8
and I suppose its only the T.A. recruits selling kit!

What a load of crap 've never heard of anything so dumb. Most of the kit is kept in the stores room and has to be signed in and questions asked if its not signed out. When you come to hand in your personal kit you are charged for it. but I know this happens with not just T.A. recruits but more often than not regular recruits as well and not just recruits but long serving soldiers as well. It seems as though the T.A. is getting a put down again. If i've read it wrong then I do apologise. Im T.A. and when i got my kit i became the proud owner of all my personal kit. I have also lost kit and reported it and been willing to pay for it becasue I play the game honestly. There will always be recruits T.A. or regular who are only interested in what they can lay there hands on and get some money for and more often than not its someone elses kit.
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#9
Get yourself some 'raiding' parties, made up of the QMs staff and a few others and turn up outside their houses about 7am on a Sunday, with a bill for the kit and a warning if it isn't accounted for or paid for you'll take them to court. TAke them to court, don't just threaten it and don't write it off. You only need to prosecute 3 or 4 of them and the message gets out.

You can also have a look around your local 'surplus' shops. As most of them Army Numbers inside their kit, you'll be surprised what you can find in amongst the DPM racks. If it's unit kit on loan to the individual, you can demand to have it back on proof that it belongs to the unit. If the Shopkeeper doesn't hand it over, call the police. He can be investigated for handling stolen goods and if there's enough of it there, he could be facing some a few charges. Local cops won't be interested but the MoD Police wil be, particularly if there's enough of it. Photograph the stuff in his shop. There's no law says that you cannot.

As the Toms have sold the kit on, they have committed theft. It was on loan to them. Most of these 'surplus' shop keepers are aware that they are buying 'stolen' property. Most are ex squaddies and have enough knowledge to know what they are buying has been issuedto the person selling it to them. As the Army has no jurisdiction on the shop keeper, then you call in the MoD Police, who have. In the end you might just have on of these 'dodgy' b*stards closed down. You might want to get onto your local Trading Standrads Officer as well. They are always up for a good root around and the 'surplus' cowboys hate them.

Don't believe the barrack room lawyers about what you can and cannot do, it is an offence to buy or sell propertyy which you believe has been stolen. It's actually not that hard to prove. Get your Trading Standards Officers to help you.
 
#10
The problem with this whole issue is in the discharge procedure. Very often the discharged soldier has deficient kit from his 1157. With the regular soldier these losses are made good by signing a P1954 which is processed through the pay section at Glasgow and deducted via the final months salary. This cannot be done with the TA soldier as there is no final salary to deduct from. A possible solution would be to withhold 4 days pay retained by Glasgow, which is reimbursed to the individual on final discharge. If the soldier has missing kit P1954 action could be pursued as with his regular counterpart. His final discharge payment will be deducted according to the value of his loss. This would save a lot of tax payers money as inevitably this diffy kit is written off as a D2 loss against the public.
 
#11
Bloody good idea that mad_mac. Even if it was not retained at Glasgow then it could well be retained a Regiment level, afterall it is the Regiment that is at a loss.
 
#12
devilish said:
Bloody good idea that mad_mac. Even if it was not retained at Glasgow then it could well be retained a Regiment level, afterall it is the Regiment that is at a loss.
Good idea, however who does the paperwork? No one can be bothered to bill people for lost kit as its bad for morale!
 
#13
Devilish,

I don`t know whether holding at Regimental level would be feasable or strictly legal. Glasgow would be the preferable option as all final discharge paperwork will go through them along with the final bill for diffy kit. I know that chasing up kit from non attenders is a costly and time consuming process if the LANDSO is followed correctly. These individuals are retained on the Units manning until SOS action is taken. This holds up promotion vacancies for other soldiers and portrays an inaccurate manning figure.

The "final discharge" payment would place the onus on the individual to return ALL their kit promptly if they want the full final payment. A radical rethink on the discharge process would be in order methinks. A pay opinion on this matter would be helpful to establish feasability and legality issues.
 
#14
^The Adj.
 
#15
50/50,

The QM Department raises the bill against individuals. Its easier to raise a P1954 against an individual than it is to raise an AF G998 which gets slapped across the COs desk. Either way the QM Dept initially raise any paperwork. The P1954 is processed upon signature through your pay staff for final deduction via Glasgow. I would say this is one of the logistical tasks of the SQMS/BQMS. To not carry out this task is contrary to JSP 336 Vol 12 (Mat Regs).
 
#16
50/50,

As for the "bad for morale" bit in your text not all situations will warrant a P1954. It has taken me an age to impress on my Unit members that there is no such thing as an "exercise loss". There is a degree of flexibilty within the logistical function to write the kit off against the public as a B2 non culpable loss, which is signed by the CO if circumstances permit.

If individuals have no accountability with their equipment and no recourse action is taken, they will not look after it. I seem to remember billing someone for an item even though there was no signature for it. People are responsible by virtue of the nature of their appointment.
 
#17
mad_mac said:
50/50,

The QM Department raises the bill against individuals. Its easier to raise a P1954 against an individual than it is to raise an AF G998 which gets slapped across the COs desk. Either way the QM Dept initially raise any paperwork. The P1954 is processed upon signature through your pay staff for final deduction via Glasgow. I would say this is one of the logistical tasks of the SQMS/BQMS. To not carry out this task is contrary to JSP 336 Vol 12 (Mat Regs).
The problem lies with trying to get someone to sign the P1954? Has any TA soldier on this forum ever been billed for lost kit?
 
#18
50/50 said:
mad_mac said:
50/50,

The QM Department raises the bill against individuals. Its easier to raise a P1954 against an individual than it is to raise an AF G998 which gets slapped across the COs desk. Either way the QM Dept initially raise any paperwork. The P1954 is processed upon signature through your pay staff for final deduction via Glasgow. I would say this is one of the logistical tasks of the SQMS/BQMS. To not carry out this task is contrary to JSP 336 Vol 12 (Mat Regs).
The problem lies with trying to get someone to sign the P1954? Has any TA soldier on this forum ever been billed for lost kit?
50/50,

I agree that it can be difficult to get them to sign a P1954. This is why there should be a "final discharge" payment. No signature, No money. I am sure this would be an incentive to sign.
 
#19
mad_mac said:
50/50 said:
mad_mac said:
50/50,

The QM Department raises the bill against individuals. Its easier to raise a P1954 against an individual than it is to raise an AF G998 which gets slapped across the COs desk. Either way the QM Dept initially raise any paperwork. The P1954 is processed upon signature through your pay staff for final deduction via Glasgow. I would say this is one of the logistical tasks of the SQMS/BQMS. To not carry out this task is contrary to JSP 336 Vol 12 (Mat Regs).
The problem lies with trying to get someone to sign the P1954? Has any TA soldier on this forum ever been billed for lost kit?
50/50,

I agree that it can be difficult to get them to sign a P1954. This is why there should be a "final discharge" payment. No signature, No money. I am sure this would be an incentive to sign.
I think there would be legal implications over withholding someones pay, just incase they lost something. Imagine losing (a genuine loss) or damaging something in a civilian workplace - surely it would be down to the employer to recoup his loss through his insurance or use the legal system.
 
#20
TA soldiers and officers are often billed for kit lost. AFAIK, the officers get charged replacement cost plus 30% and the soldiers get charged the written-down price. The keen soldier who wishes to stay in the TA pays up, sometimes after a whip-round if it was a bit of section kit that was lost.

Kit insurance is sometimes negotiated at unit level, with a premium payable by those who want to join the scheme. I can't understand why everyone doesn't take advantage of schemes like this. Wait until you lose something expensive (a shutter assembly for a Director L1A1 springs to mind for some reason ....) then the £ 20 a year or whatever seems very good value, even witha £ 25 excess.

The problem comes when the amount owed is reasonably large (say £ 50), the soldier is NFI and going anyway. I think the idea of witholding 1 days pay per qtr until 4 days has been amassed, or holding the first 4 days pay owed, is a very good one.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top